Not an Indiana Jones plot (yet) —

Is space the next frontier for archaeology?

What does the Huygens lander have in common with Stonehenge? More than you expect.

The beloved Cassini, which fired its thrusters one last time last September, is just one of many things we've left out in space.

In the past 60 years, humans have left a lot of stuff on other worlds or floating in space. We’ve landed (or crashed) spacecraft on Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko, and Titan. Along with the hundreds of objects in orbit around Earth, the Moon, and Mars, those spacecraft provide a physical record of human activity that could outlast some of the most ancient ruins here on Earth.

Further Reading

“There's stuff in orbit, particularly in middle to high orbits, that's up there for thousands or even millions of years,” said Flinders University space archaeologist Alice Gorman.

Luckily, just as archaeologists back here on Earth take interest in the remains of decades past beneath us, some in the industry have started pursuing a similar curiosity in what's above our pale blue dot. And, accordingly, a branch of archaeology has emerged that wants to bring the study of humanity’s past into the future.

Linking the Stone Age to the Space Age

In 1969, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong spent their last eight minutes on the lunar surface on the steps of the Eagle tossing things overboard: armrests, overshoes, urine containers, and anything else they thought they wouldn’t need for the trip back. They’d been instructed to discard as much unneeded weight as possible to make up for the 50kg of lunar rock and regolith samples they had picked up, and their lives depended on getting it right.

Further Reading

There’s no detailed official inventory of everything they threw overboard, although New Mexico State University archaeologist Beth O’Leary and her colleagues have compiled a thorough list in retrospect. The pile of discarded objects to the west of the Apollo 11 landing site offers physical evidence of the astronauts’ thought process in those crucial moments. It also forms a tangible link to a life-or-death human drama. And that, according to the growing number of archaeologists interested in off-world sites, underscores the value of archaeology in space.

“Looking at these technologies as an archaeologist rather than an engineer gives you a whole other perspective—you fall in love with the stories rather than the bits of metal,” said Gorman.

This photo of Buzz Aldrin at Mare Tranquillitatis is one of the most iconic images ever committed to film. Visible in Aldrin's visor is the reflection of Neil Armstrong taking the photo.

The vast majority of surface images from Apollo 11 that include an astronaut show Buzz Aldrin. This is due to the allocation of tasks to each astronaut; Armstrong had more opportunities to take photos. As a result, this is the only high-quality Hasselblad photograph of Neil Armstrong on the lunar surface.

Space archaeologists acknowledge their field is similar to recent excavations of the Antarctic base camps of Shackleton and Mawson. Those explorers, too, left behind extensive written accounts of their adventures, but much of the unwritten story is left behind in the places they lived and the objects they used—and discarded.

And there are Space Age archaeological discoveries yet to be made—lost spaceship wrecks and gleaming metal ruins waiting to be found and explored. Among the lost ships of the Space Age are the first spacecraft ever to land on the Moon, the Soviet Luna 9 lander, and the American Surveyor 4 lander, one of the precursors to the Apollo missions. Finding these missing spacecraft can solve some historical puzzles about their fate and fill in gaps in the story of space exploration. For instance, no one is sure why Surveyor 4 crashed; perhaps it plummeted the final 20 kilometers to the Moon’s surface or maybe it executed a perfect landing only to have its radio transmitter malfunction.

“We don't know what happened to it, and being able to find it might answer that question,” said Western University geographer Phil Stooke, who maps human activity on Mars and the Moon.

In that sense, the emerging field of space archaeology may share a common thread with nautical archaeology. After all, shipwrecks, polar base camps, and abandoned spacecraft are all pieces of the same broad, sweeping story: human exploration. Humans evolved as tool-users and explorers, and eventually we built the tools to cross oceans and then travel to other worlds. The lunar landers are part of the same human story as the first rough-hewn stone tools, the first campfire, the first boat, and the first domestic animals.

“We can't pin down when the first human learned to use fire and changed the world,” said Charles Sturt University cultural heritage management professor Dirk Spennemann. “We don't have any location or point in time we can pinpoint as nicely for one of the big steps of human evolution. We have rough dates and locations, but we don't have a date, a point, and a person. We do have that for Apollo 11, so everything associated with that one is of significance for all of humanity.”

Archaeologists in spacesuits?

Scientists have been part of NASA missions since geologist Harrison Schmidt joined the Apollo 17 crew as an expert to study lunar geology. And there's hope future space missions may include archaeologists as science specialists, just as today’s missions include engineers, chemists, or biologists. “I think at some point they’ll need an archaeologist,” said O’Leary. “I'm a little old to go up there, but I would go.”

Although there has never been an archaeologist in space, astronauts may have already done archaeological work on the Moon. On the Apollo 12 mission, astronaut Alan Bean removed the television camera and other components from the Surveyor 3 lander, which had been on the Moon since April 1967. Pennsylvania State University archaeologist P.J. Capelotti wrote in his 1996 dissertation that the Surveyor 3 salvage was the first example of lunar archaeology.

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. Capelotti once ran the idea by Pete Conrad—the astronaut who photographed Bean at work.

“I said, ‘Did you realize you were doing archaeology on the Moon?’ and there was this long pause at the other end of the phone, and he finally said no,” said Capelotti. “He considered it a kind of kooky idea.”

46 Reader Comments

I think we should mandate that when possible, space archaeology should use only non destructive methods. No digging, no sample removal, nothing that will anger our scientists from hundreds of years in the future with how tragic it was that we disturbed sites that could have been studied down to the molecule for greater understanding if only we had left it alone.

Here on earth, the very rocks that are chipped away to reveal fossils will someday reveal more about the animal that was preserved there than the bone remnants that we seek exclusively today. Future generations will understand that we were limited by our abilities and knowledge but will still curse our names for the loss of potential knowledge that our crude techniques inevitably produce

I suspect something serious will occur (like a treaty) when some other country or entity decides to stomp into (either in person or with a robot) something like the Apollo 11 site and take a selfie standing next to old NASA equipment.

Or some authoritarian government decides to video themselves yanking an American flag stuck in the ground at somewhere like the Apollo 12 site.

Sure, you might say "Nobody would do that!", but what outrages one group often makes another one cheer.

Of course, maybe the solution is to have a PERMANENT settlement on the moon that could be tasked with (along with many other things of course) to watch for intruders in these places and intercept them before they destroy historical sites.

I think one major difference to archaeology as we know it is that all of the space age is so well documented that we will hardly learn new things while with "classic" archaeology it's about things that usually are the only trace left of times and people we want to learn about. Especially from prehistoric times we have nothing else than what we dig out (which is basically the very definition of "prehistoric": there are no first-hand accounts from back then). Both are pretty much on opposite ends of a spectrum.

Space archaeology basically is novelty science, or at best it may serve to complete some (fairly inconsequential) knowledge or learn about long-term effects on artifacts in the space environment, but it won't teach us about times and people and technologies we know nothing else of.

That being said it's cool of course. Landing a craft close to one of the oldest probes on the Moon (or Apollo 11) and drive over with a rover and take detailed photos would be a deserving setup for some prize which would drive a lot of public interest.

I think one major difference to archaeology as we know it is that all of the space age is so well documented...

On the other hand many data tapes from the "old" days in space are no longer readable. Much data is lost as it was not copied in time or nobody thought it was worth preserving. Or like the list of stuff they left on the moon to get rid of weight, some things were never documented as nobody thought it was worth it.

Not long ago I read an article about archaeologists digging up protest camps from the 60s and 70s to learn about all the every day life there which nobody documented back then.

Todays unimportant and uninteresting trash may be a treasure for future generations of historians. Just like the garbage pits from medieval or ancient roman cities. Who knows what future generations want to learn about us, but we threw it away without documenting.

I think one major difference to archaeology as we know it is that all of the space age is so well documented...

On the other hand many data tapes from the "old" days in space are no longer readable. Much data is lost as it was not copied in time or nobody thought it was worth preserving. Or like the list of stuff they left on the moon to get rid of weight, some things were never documented as nobody thought it was worth it.

Not long ago I read an article about archaeologists digging up protest camps from the 60s and 70s to learn about all the every day life there which nobody documented back then.

Todays unimportant and uninteresting trash may be a treasure for future generations of historians. Just like the garbage pits from medieval or ancient roman cities. Who knows what future generations want to learn about us, but we threw it away without documenting.

I can see the argument, but the problem is - I just don't think there's enough stuff out there for this to be anything more than a sideline curiosity for maybe one researcher.

Yes, data tapes have been lost, but we won't be getting that back by salvaging old hardware from space. The actual list of stuff thrown overboard on the Moon would be interesting, but I don't see it telling us much about the story that we don't already know or haven't already heard from the astronauts themselves.

The "state of mind" argument for that one also sounds good on the surface, but coming from the perspective of a pilot - I seriously doubt there was any significant introspection about what got tossed. It was most likely "What's heavy, easy to remove, and not strictly required for flight?" Then they ran down that list from top to bottom until they were at their target.

In short, I'm not against the idea, and I think nations agreeing to conserve early sites is a good thing - but I'm more inclined to agree with this being novelty science than anything else. I just don't see us learning anything significant enough that it would be worth the expense and effort.

I'd like to see the remains of the Apollo 11 Eagle ascent vehicle that they crashed back into the Moon. Are there fairly large pieces, or did it break up so much that it would be hard to find the debris and impact crater? This is interesting stuff!

I'd like to see the remains of the Apollo 11 Eagle ascent vehicle that they crashed back into the Moon. Are there fairly large pieces, or did it break up so much that it would be hard to find the debris and impact crater? This is interesting stuff!

I agree! My first thought when I read your post was, "I wonder if Armstrong's watch survived the crash?" As a lover of old automatics, I get giddy just considering the idea.

I'd like to see the remains of the Apollo 11 Eagle ascent vehicle that they crashed back into the Moon. Are there fairly large pieces, or did it break up so much that it would be hard to find the debris and impact crater? This is interesting stuff!

I agree! My first thought when I read your post was, "I wonder if Armstrong's watch survived the crash?" As a lover of old automatics, I get giddy just considering the idea.

Huh?? Why would he have left his watch behind on the Moon or on the ascent vehicle? I assume he used the watch for flight procedures / logging / etc and would have needed it on the way back.

My personal favorite, the martian archeologist team discovers something similar to what was written by Damon Knight in a short story -- "Ticket to Anywhere" (1952) -- about an interplanetary doorway-transport device (each move is part of a vast spiral toward the center of our galaxy). Wishful irl stuff tho.

I think we should mandate that when possible, space archaeology should use only non destructive methods. No digging, no sample removal, nothing that will anger our scientists from hundreds of years in the future with how tragic it was that we disturbed sites that could have been studied down to the molecule for greater understanding if only we had left it alone.

Here on earth, the very rocks that are chipped away to reveal fossils will someday reveal more about the animal that was preserved there than the bone remnants that we seek exclusively today. Future generations will understand that we were limited by our abilities and knowledge but will still curse our names for the loss of potential knowledge that our crude techniques inevitably produce

Future inhabitants of the Earth may just think "thoughtless destructiveness - no wonder they become extinct."

I think one major difference to archaeology as we know it is that all of the space age is so well documented that we will hardly learn new things while with "classic" archaeology it's about things that usually are the only trace left of times and people we want to learn about. Especially from prehistoric times we have nothing else than what we dig out (which is basically the very definition of "prehistoric": there are no first-hand accounts from back then). Both are pretty much on opposite ends of a spectrum.

Space archaeology basically is novelty science, or at best it may serve to complete some (fairly inconsequential) knowledge or learn about long-term effects on artifacts in the space environment, but it won't teach us about times and people and technologies we know nothing else of.

That being said it's cool of course. Landing a craft close to one of the oldest probes on the Moon (or Apollo 11) and drive over with a rover and take detailed photos would be a deserving setup for some prize which would drive a lot of public interest.

You are assuming (see my post above) that space archaeology will be done by human beings.

I'd like to see the remains of the Apollo 11 Eagle ascent vehicle that they crashed back into the Moon. Are there fairly large pieces, or did it break up so much that it would be hard to find the debris and impact crater? This is interesting stuff!

Given an impact velocity of around 3000 mph (lunar orbital speed), I don't think there'd be much left.

My personal favorite, the martian archeologist team discovers something similar to what was written by Damon Knight in a short story -- "Ticket to Anywhere" (1952) -- about an interplanetary doorway-transport device (each move is part of a vast spiral toward the center of our galaxy). Wishful irl stuff tho.

Yeah, that's all fun, until Earth has to be destroyed to make room for an interstellar hyperspace bypass

Huh?? Why would he have left his watch behind on the Moon or on the ascent vehicle? I assume he used the watch for flight procedures / logging / etc and would have needed it on the way back.

The way I heard the story was that he'd left it inside because of an electronic clock failure (had to have a working clock inside), and then, when they were leaving, forgot it was attached to a stanchion or a console or something, and away it went. I fully admit I have no idea if it's true (and am now panicking because I can't find a link to corroborate) , but I really want it to be true because, y'know, what if it is true and the watch can be found and, by some happy combination of luck and good engineering, the watch still works?!?

Huh?? Why would he have left his watch behind on the Moon or on the ascent vehicle? I assume he used the watch for flight procedures / logging / etc and would have needed it on the way back.

The way I heard the story was that he'd left it inside because of an electronic clock failure (had to have a working clock inside), and then, when they were leaving, forgot it was attached to a stanchion or a console or something, and away it went. I fully admit I have no idea if it's true (and am now panicking because I can't find a link to corroborate) , but I really want it to be true because, y'know, what if it is true and the watch can be found and, by some happy combination of luck and good engineering, the watch still works?!?

EDIT: comma splice, closing tags

I didn't ever hear about Armstrong leaving the watch in the ascent module after reaching orbit I am not sure if that is accurate. He didn't wear his on the first moonwalk because there was a broken timer in the LM. Neil and Buzz decided to leave one watch behind to have a timer in the event both of their watches were broken or lost on the surface of the moon. Buzz kept his on and Neil's remained in the module during the moonwalk.

Sadly if you love watches you may not want to read this next part. That means that Aldrin's watch was the first watch worn on the surface of the moon. In 1970 Aldrin donated it to the Smithsonian but it was lost enroute. Nobody knows where it is today. Hopefully it is sitting on some shelf somewhere in good condition and will turn up one day. If anyone happens to come across a Omega Speedmaster Model ST105.012 with a serial number below 200 it may have been on the moon.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

My personal favorite, the martian archeologist team discovers something similar to what was written by Damon Knight in a short story -- "Ticket to Anywhere" (1952) -- about an interplanetary doorway-transport device (each move is part of a vast spiral toward the center of our galaxy). Wishful irl stuff tho.

Yeah, that's all fun, until Earth has to be destroyed to make room for an interstellar hyperspace bypass

While exploring the galaxy using a forgotten tech left by a lost civilisation, upon learning about Earth's demise, I would probably sniff a tear or two at the loss of a vaguely remembered place from long ago.

Huh?? Why would he have left his watch behind on the Moon or on the ascent vehicle? I assume he used the watch for flight procedures / logging / etc and would have needed it on the way back.

The way I heard the story was that he'd left it inside because of an electronic clock failure (had to have a working clock inside), and then, when they were leaving, forgot it was attached to a stanchion or a console or something, and away it went. I fully admit I have no idea if it's true (and am now panicking because I can't find a link to corroborate) , but I really want it to be true because, y'know, what if it is true and the watch can be found and, by some happy combination of luck and good engineering, the watch still works?!?

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

If it's ever possible to do over the weekend, then were on to something.

I'd like to see the remains of the Apollo 11 Eagle ascent vehicle that they crashed back into the Moon. Are there fairly large pieces, or did it break up so much that it would be hard to find the debris and impact crater? This is interesting stuff!

Given an impact velocity of around 3000 mph (lunar orbital speed), I don't think there'd be much left.

Apollo 10's Ascent Stage on the other hand, that's still out there in a heliocentric orbit somewhere. If that one could get found, it's be an amazing coup for space archeology.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

It was my understanding that the fastest thing we ever launched (New Horizons) was still too slow to catch up to either Voyager probe at their current speeds - even if it was on a course to do so.

In short, they're so far out and moving so quickly that catching up to them with any current (or even reasonably envisioned) technology is out of the question. To say nothing of capturing and returning them intact.

Have I missed something? I would truly, seriously love to know if I have. Because that would be kickass.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

It was my understanding that the fastest thing we ever launched (New Horizons) was still too slow to catch up to either Voyager probe at their current speeds - even if it was on a course to do so.

In short, they're so far out and moving so quickly that catching up to them with any current (or even reasonably envisioned) technology is out of the question. To say nothing of capturing and returning them intact.

Have I missed something? I would truly, seriously love to know if I have. Because that would be kickass.

Small fission reactor and an ion engine should be able to catch it and return eventually, though not in my lifetime.

In that, space archaeology shares another similarity with nautical archaeology: the work of excavation takes place in an environment foreign to humans, in which archaeologists must move in three dimensions, with the aid of specialized equipment and in the face of increased risk. In orbit, however, the danger—and the sheer strangeness of working in extra dimensions, mapping sites with trajectories instead of grid squares—will be magnified.

I've performed underwater archaeological surveys and I can confirm that the environment is hostile and the work is highly specialized. The most harrowing types of surveys involve going into submerged vessels or structures. Getting disoriented or tangled up and running out of air is the nightmare scenario for every diver, but is especially problematic for underwater archaeologists. My uncle worked as an underwater welder (which is well-known to be one of the riskiest occupations) and he always told me that the most important thing to do is to remain calm in all situations. He told me countless tales of fellow welders who became entangled and panicked, leading to further entanglement and drowning.

Another problem that we faced was distraction. That is, we sometimes got so engrossed in our work that we lost track of time. That's very easy to do when your subject is usually quite fascinating and your methodology must be so meticulous and precise. Luckily for us, our dive supervisors were watching out for us.

Anyway, I think that if there is ever to be an opening for a "space archaeologist", then underwater archaeology experience would have to be a prerequisite.

Quote:

Gorman has given some thought to how archaeologists might approach the challenges of orbital sites. “Probably in the future we'll have new methods of propulsion and tiny orbital drones that can do the mapping for us,” she said. “We'll conduct surveys from spacecraft or remotely from planet- or Moon-side.”

We're already doing this sort of survey on Earth (i.e. remote sensing/satellite mapping) to find sites with archaeological potential, so we should be able to adapt these techniques for the Moon or other planets. Archaeologists have also tapped into other technologies, such as machine learning, to make the surveys more accurate.

Sadly if you love watches you may not want to read this next part. That means that Aldrin's watch was the first watch worn on the surface of the moon. In 1970 Aldrin donated it to the Smithsonian but it was lost enroute. Nobody knows where it is today. Hopefully it is sitting on some shelf somewhere in good condition and will turn up one day. If anyone happens to come across a Omega Speedmaster Model ST105.012 with a serial number below 200 it may have been on the moon.

Yes, that is quite the loss. I inherited a '60s-vintage Omega Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial from my Dad and I'd tear my hair out if I ever lost it. Even though it may be the best dive watch (of many) that I own, it never sees use beyond the occasional dressy occasion. I have several cheap(er) beaters if I ever have to get wet, these days.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

It was my understanding that the fastest thing we ever launched (New Horizons) was still too slow to catch up to either Voyager probe at their current speeds - even if it was on a course to do so.

In short, they're so far out and moving so quickly that catching up to them with any current (or even reasonably envisioned) technology is out of the question. To say nothing of capturing and returning them intact.

Have I missed something? I would truly, seriously love to know if I have. Because that would be kickass.

Small fission reactor and an ion engine should be able to catch it and return eventually, though not in my lifetime.

Good point. I'd forgotten about things like nuclear thermal, which are unlikely to ever fly for political reasons. But it doesn't invalidate the tech.

I personally dislike the term "space archeology". The Space Age started so recently that it bears almost no resemblance to the actual concept of archeology. It is more accurately just "Space history", because if you were studying anything else from the 1950s (and really even much further back), you'd be a historian not an archeologist.

Archeology is about digging up the unknown pastHuman activity on the moon is already so well documented and photographed I doubt if any future explorer on the moon will find anything surprising at the Apollo 11 landing site.Those Hasselblad cameras snapped photos of everything in sight.

I personally dislike the term "space archeology". The Space Age started so recently that it bears almost no resemblance to the actual concept of archeology. It is more accurately just "Space history", because if you were studying anything else from the 1950s (and really even much further back), you'd be a historian not an archeologist.

I don't really think that it is accurate to differentiate historians and archaeologists on the basis of time. Rather, there is some overlap, but they have different focuses. An archaeologist is a person who discovers/organizes/documents/presents artifacts while a historian is a person who analyzes and documents how things and people change thru time -- and proposes reasons for why. They overlap in terms of things like culture, but there is no reason why an archaeologist can't study very recent things (like ground zero for 911) and a historian can't study things from the deep past (like the court activities of the Egyptian kings).

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

It was my understanding that the fastest thing we ever launched (New Horizons) was still too slow to catch up to either Voyager probe at their current speeds - even if it was on a course to do so.

In short, they're so far out and moving so quickly that catching up to them with any current (or even reasonably envisioned) technology is out of the question. To say nothing of capturing and returning them intact.

Have I missed something? I would truly, seriously love to know if I have. Because that would be kickass.

Small fission reactor and an ion engine should be able to catch it and return eventually, though not in my lifetime.

Good point. I'd forgotten about things like nuclear thermal, which are unlikely to ever fly for political reasons. But it doesn't invalidate the tech.

The line between archaeology and treasure-hunting is gonna be awful blurry.

I can't quite make up my mind whether the prospect of the Voyager spacecraft winding up in somebody's private collection, instead of roaming the galaxy for billions of years, makes me incredibly sad or incredibly happy.

I'd lean toward happy - because if it's ever possible for us to catch up to and bring Voyager home, its mission is probably moot.

If it's ever? It's already possible, though not very practical.

It was my understanding that the fastest thing we ever launched (New Horizons) was still too slow to catch up to either Voyager probe at their current speeds - even if it was on a course to do so.

In short, they're so far out and moving so quickly that catching up to them with any current (or even reasonably envisioned) technology is out of the question. To say nothing of capturing and returning them intact.

Have I missed something? I would truly, seriously love to know if I have. Because that would be kickass.

Small fission reactor and an ion engine should be able to catch it and return eventually, though not in my lifetime.

Good point. I'd forgotten about things like nuclear thermal, which are unlikely to ever fly for political reasons. But it doesn't invalidate the tech.

Honestly, we some how have to get over some the political issues with nuclear. If want to go to or live in the outer edges of solar system we are going to need it for more than just powering an engine. I honestly think some of the international treaties should be slightly reworked. An ion engine powered by a reactor is pretty non threatening in my book.